A vital question for me: "of all the Wuhan Virus model, have ANY models suggested 95% confidence interval?

[shockedcanadian]

I've looked at some of the old models and noticed a glaringly lack of the standard accepted "95% Confidence Interval" for these predictions. This is the scientific standard used (much higher is needed in some disciplines), and it's clearly been disregarded due to the circumstances, but we can't allow it to be disregarded going forward.

Of course, caution has lead the day, and it should. There simply wasn't enough data to know, and worse, the Communists were dishonest about it and still are secretive, which should give us all a hint. What is important is now with more information and an understanding of the virus (no thanks to the communists), we must now better predict with higher confidence, the outcome going forward. Some have happily quoted models lacking this confidence interval, but, demand even higher confidence for emergency cures, and, predict the Fall return is a certainty.

Those predicting that the Wuhan Virus as coming back again,especially in a stronger form, are again relying on modelling to which NONE of them can apply scientific rigor, especially considering that there is NO virus in history that has been met with more extreme responses to mitigate. So, in short, any model they used from other examples is almost certainly overstating the risk. Is politics meeting science?

Maybe some want to "allow" people to be free in the Summer, because they know Civil Disobedience will be high anyways, but come Fall, they can shut it all down again because, well, "the virus is back!?" No rallies No public debates.

America has to win, or we are all in trouble. In my opinion, this means a strong, healthy fight between all politicians regarding policies, in a public forum. Virus or no virus. Relying on models alone to dictate ones liberty, especially when the real data is clearly skewed in hotspots; is a losing strategy.

 

[toobfreak]

I've looked at some of the old models and noticed a glaringly lack of the standard accepted "95% Confidence Interval" for these predictions. This is the scientific standard used (much higher is needed in some disciplines), and it's clearly been disregarded due to the circumstances, but we can't allow it to be disregarded going forward.

Of course, caution has lead the day, and it should. There simply wasn't enough data to know, and worse, the Communists were dishonest about it and still are secretive, which should give us all a hint. What is important is now with more information and an understanding of the virus (no thanks to the communists), we must now better predict with higher confidence, the outcome going forward. Some have happily quoted models lacking this confidence interval, but, demand even higher confidence for emergency cures, and, predict the Fall return is a certainty.

Those predicting that the Wuhan Virus as coming back again,especially in a stronger form, are again relying on modelling to which NONE of them can apply scientific rigor, especially considering that there is NO virus in history that has been met with more extreme responses to mitigate. So, in short, any model they used from other examples is almost certainly overstating the risk. Is politics meeting science?

Maybe some want to "allow" people to be free in the Summer, because they know Civil Disobedience will be high anyways, but come Fall, they can shut it all down again because, well, "the virus is back!?" No rallies No public debates.

America has to win, or we are all in trouble. In my opinion, this means a strong, healthy fight between all politicians regarding policies, in a public forum. Virus or no virus. Relying on models alone to dictate ones liberty, especially when the real data is clearly skewed in hotspots; is a losing strategy.

A mysterious, hidden viral pandemic has now simply replaced failed models for catastrophic global climate change.
All predictions of catastrophe have thus far proved highly in error, so now the elite have subbed in a worse fear, a viral pandemic where the vast majority are proving to never even felt sick or shown symptoms, and no more die than any other year, yet able to justify the fear to shut down an economy plunging nations into darkness.

 

[JoeMoma]

I don't know about the modeling, but I expect that our extreme responses to mitigate the first round of the virus is exactly why it may comeback strong for a second round. Keeping people hiding at home prevents the development of herd immunity. Without herd immunity or a working vaccine, we are just prolonging the inevitable.

 

[JoeMoma]

I've looked at some of the old models and noticed a glaringly lack of the standard accepted "95% Confidence Interval" for these predictions. This is the scientific standard used (much higher is needed in some disciplines), and it's clearly been disregarded due to the circumstances, but we can't allow it to be disregarded going forward.

Of course, caution has lead the day, and it should. There simply wasn't enough data to know, and worse, the Communists were dishonest about it and still are secretive, which should give us all a hint. What is important is now with more information and an understanding of the virus (no thanks to the communists), we must now better predict with higher confidence, the outcome going forward. Some have happily quoted models lacking this confidence interval, but, demand even higher confidence for emergency cures, and, predict the Fall return is a certainty.

Those predicting that the Wuhan Virus as coming back again,especially in a stronger form, are again relying on modelling to which NONE of them can apply scientific rigor, especially considering that there is NO virus in history that has been met with more extreme responses to mitigate. So, in short, any model they used from other examples is almost certainly overstating the risk. Is politics meeting science?

Maybe some want to "allow" people to be free in the Summer, because they know Civil Disobedience will be high anyways, but come Fall, they can shut it all down again because, well, "the virus is back!?" No rallies No public debates.

America has to win, or we are all in trouble. In my opinion, this means a strong, healthy fight between all politicians regarding policies, in a public forum. Virus or no virus. Relying on models alone to dictate ones liberty, especially when the real data is clearly skewed in hotspots; is a losing strategy.

A mysterious, hidden viral pandemic has now simply replaced failed models for catastrophic global climate change.
All predictions of catastrophe have thus far proved highly in error, so now the elite have subbed in a worse fear, a viral pandemic where the vast majority are proving to never even felt sick or shown symptoms, and no more die than any other year, yet able to justify the fear to shut down an economy plunging nations into darkness.

My own little conspiracy theory: The Covid -19 virus was spread for the purpose of fighting global warming.

 

[toobfreak]

My own little conspiracy theory: The Covid -19 virus was spread for the purpose of fighting global warming.

Less people, less human activity. Could be.

 

[Rigby5]

I've looked at some of the old models and noticed a glaringly lack of the standard accepted "95% Confidence Interval" for these predictions. This is the scientific standard used (much higher is needed in some disciplines), and it's clearly been disregarded due to the circumstances, but we can't allow it to be disregarded going forward.

Of course, caution has lead the day, and it should. There simply wasn't enough data to know, and worse, the Communists were dishonest about it and still are secretive, which should give us all a hint. What is important is now with more information and an understanding of the virus (no thanks to the communists), we must now better predict with higher confidence, the outcome going forward. Some have happily quoted models lacking this confidence interval, but, demand even higher confidence for emergency cures, and, predict the Fall return is a certainty.

Those predicting that the Wuhan Virus as coming back again,especially in a stronger form, are again relying on modelling to which NONE of them can apply scientific rigor, especially considering that there is NO virus in history that has been met with more extreme responses to mitigate. So, in short, any model they used from other examples is almost certainly overstating the risk. Is politics meeting science?

Maybe some want to "allow" people to be free in the Summer, because they know Civil Disobedience will be high anyways, but come Fall, they can shut it all down again because, well, "the virus is back!?" No rallies No public debates.

America has to win, or we are all in trouble. In my opinion, this means a strong, healthy fight between all politicians regarding policies, in a public forum. Virus or no virus. Relying on models alone to dictate ones liberty, especially when the real data is clearly skewed in hotspots; is a losing strategy.

I don't know what models you are referring to, but it is very rare there been any epidemic that has been mitigated by lock down, quarantine, or social distancing. About the only one I can think of is Ebola.
And even that I am not sure.

With a virus like COVID-19 that is airborn and so easily spread, a lock down, quarantine, or social distancing likely are the wrong thing to try,
Likely Sweden as the only answer, which is for health people to encourage the spread, while only the compromised quarantine.
That achieves herd immunity the quickest, and that then causes the epidemic to end as quickly as possible, with the fewest deaths.

The problem with lock down, quarantine, or social distancing is that it does nothing to end it. It just slows it down, so that it last the longest possible. In fact, it can make the epidemic permanent. As long as a few have it and most are not immune, it will stay around forever. The only way to end it is for most to become immune by getting it and getting over it. The death rate for health people is so low, there is no reason to avoid getting it as soon as possible. Those who delay will get more deadly strains later.

 

[Rigby5]

I don't know about the modeling, but I expect that our extreme responses to mitigate the first round of the virus is exactly why it may comeback strong for a second round. Keeping people hiding at home prevents the development of herd immunity. Without herd immunity or a working vaccine, we are just prolonging the inevitable.

Exactly.
All the healthy should want to get the virus as soon as possible, so not only do we have herd immunity as a society, but then we avoid the next year variant that would otherwise be even more deadly.